@EvanDaniel

>"I will use the same criteria as that market: has a payload been delivered in a way that a customer would be happy with?"

Seems fair enough as a brief general description of what is there but I think at least the following should also be noted in the description as it is different from what you would conclude from that alone.:

"If a test flight with no payload, reaches its target trajectory or destination - disregarding later parts of the flight pertaining only to vehicle recovery or disposal."

It might also be useful to state which test flights count as successful:

Flight 1 & 2 didn't reach SECO so not intended trajectory.
Flight 3: The planned suborbital trajectory injection was reached, but loss of attitude control. Payload bay door opening/closing test, and propellant transfer test were completed. The planned Raptor engine restart in space was canceled. Booster crashed into ocean after late landing burn; Starship lost contact at ~65 km altitude during reentry.
Flight 4: Intended trajectory. Flap burn though caused intended soft splash down to be 6km from centre of target i.e. close but not exact location
Flight 5: Intended trajectory. Reduced Flap burn through. Soft splash down with high accuracy.
Flight 6: Intended trajectory. Launch tower damage caused booster recovery abort. Soft splash down with high accuracy.
Flight 7 , 8 & 9 didn't reach SECO so not intended trajectory.

1, 2, 7, 8, 9 seem clearly no.
4, 5 & 6 would seem to count as any failures are only re vehicle recovery or disposal.

Flight 3 seems a bit ambiguous as lack of attitude control would mean payload could not deploy so customer would not be happy but there wasn't any payload so only needed "to reach its target trajectory or destination". It did get to target trajectory so on literal interpretation of words it is a yes. However, perhaps it is less clear than that as perhaps it is uncertain whether "reaching target trajectory" should be interpreted to mean including having attitude control?

@ChristopherRandles All of that seems reasonable. I'm hoping to not have to judge flights on this market and just resolve consistently with the linked market, but also it's possible this one is close but the 500 launch one isn't. I think my inclination would be to count flight 3 under those terms, bringing the total to 4 so far.

@EvanDaniel Thank you for the prompt clarification. I'm actually going to buy a little Yes just because.

(Because I originally bought No shares at 68% so they've appreciated....)

Making a market for a mid-point milestone was a good idea.

This market is roughly the halfway point for 500 launches by 2030, on an exponential growth market.

I think that makes it somewhat more likely than the linked market; if SpaceX hits 500 launches by 2030, I strongly expect it will look like an exponential path to get there. But it's also plausible they'll have a quick start and then slow down as they hit later sub-exponential constraints like launch sites, demand, regulation, and so on.